wisdom wrote:This is as true of a one night stand as it is for a long term relationship.

On shaky ground here. Is Dharma Ending Age really the sort of time to give more consent for 5 preceptees to excuse to break them?

Some of those pick up artist and open marriage proposers are already using similar arguments.

I'm sure they are, and they are encouraging the culture of lust with their overall approach to sexuality. They are encouraging men to see women as nothing more than an animal to be hunted, a possessor of something to be obtained regardless of the flowery language they use to disguise it. Its all about manipulation and using someone. My point is that even if you decide to have a one night stand, which is completely different from being a pick up artist and something many people will do in their life, you should do it with those intentions of being selfless in order to avoid the suffering that inevitably arises in the pursuit of seeking sexual pleasure for its own sake and as an end in itself.

In terms of the 5 precepts they don't apply to lay Buddhists. Basically the precepts just say don't have sex with your siblings, immediate family, women who are married or engaged or otherwise taken, or women who are protected by their families or by law (such as underage girls). I add to this that any sexual conduct that strengthens lust or harms another, or even conduct that leads to the suffering of another later such as in the case of someone you manipulate into sleeping with you only to never call them and therefore cause them sorrow, is misconduct.

wisdom wrote:This is as true of a one night stand as it is for a long term relationship.

On shaky ground here. Is Dharma Ending Age really the sort of time to give more consent for 5 preceptees to excuse to break them?

Some of those pick up artist and open marriage proposers are already using similar arguments.

It seems like you read Wisdom as endorsing promiscuity or something. To me, though, it seemed that Wisdom was simply saying that no matter what the circumstances of one's sexual encounters, one should try to imbue each encounter with the spirit of generosity and respect and wishing to give pleasure to one's partner, rather than selfishly focusing more on one's own pleasure. This is healthy, virtuous advice.

wisdom wrote:In terms of the 5 precepts they don't apply to lay Buddhists.

This is not correct, Wisdom. The 5 precepts (Sans. upasaka, Tib. genyen) are definitely vows lay people can and do often take. They can choose to take one, a few, or all of them. The vow against sexual misconduct doesn't include celibacy, though, of course. When I received the 5 precepts, my lama stressed many of the points you made regarding sexuality, i.e. being respectful and caring toward one's partner and having a spirit of generosity instead of being selfish, manipulative, or harmful in any way.

Lhug-Pa wrote:In reflecting on it a bit, what I wrote in the Bönpo Rushen thread about possibly causing a split in the Sangha by defending my position regarding the teachings of Samael Aun Weor, was maybe a little silly of me to say; because I think that causing a split in the Sangha intentionally is really bad, and unintentionally is bad too, but could likely be purfified more easily if it were to ever happen unintentionally. So since such a thing is not my intention, I'll not refrain very much from speaking on the said topic like I'd intended. Will just have to make sure to keep my egos in check and do my best to not descend into arguements and such.

We might as well get to the bottom of this.

Namdrol, will you look at page three of the End of the Kali Yuga thread in the Lounge?

Samael Aun Weor wrote about the black Tantra practice of mixing masculine Sukra with feminine Raja right here:

Although I highly doubt that Buddhist Root Tantras recommend such a thing.

And I still need to read for myself the context of what Guru Rinpoche and other Masters are said to have said about separating the Sukra from Ojas. It may very well be possible to do it without wasting semen through the orgasm. I know from experience that sexual sublimation works at least to a considerable degree.

Raghavan Iyer wrote:Then I turned to him and asked him whether he was referring to the Dugpas, to sorcerers and to ‘soulless men.’

When I said this, his interpreter could not translate it because the word ‘Dugpa’ has two senses. Literally, it refers to an inhabitant of Bhutan, and using that meaning his interpreter could not make sense of what I was saying. There is another meaning to the word, meaning an evil being, or even a sorcerer, and to my surprise this seemed to be unfamiliar to the interpreter.

But the Dalai Lama showed that he understood exactly what I had in mind.

Lhug-Pa wrote:Although I highly doubt that Buddhist Root Tantras recommend such a thing.

They do, actually. Furthermore, you need to read carefully the SOV book and see what ChNN has to say about this. You will discover that what I have said is in fact the case, from a Dzogchen perspective.

Lhug-Pa wrote:Although I highly doubt that Buddhist Root Tantras recommend such a thing.

They do, actually. Furthermore, you need to read carefully the SOV book and see what ChNN has to say about this. You will discover that what I have said is in fact the case, from a Dzogchen perspective.

N

Do you have a page reference for that? Thanks.

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal

Lhug-Pa wrote:Although I highly doubt that Buddhist Root Tantras recommend such a thing.

They do, actually. Furthermore, you need to read carefully the SOV book and see what ChNN has to say about this. You will discover that what I have said is in fact the case, from a Dzogchen perspective.

Namdrol wrote:They do, actually. Furthermore, you need to read carefully the SOV book and see what ChNN has to say about this. You will discover that what I have said is in fact the case, from a Dzogchen perspective.

N

Do you have a page reference for that? Thanks.

Pg. 61-62.

Well that's indeed about as clear as you can get.

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal

If orgasm is such an essential part of Vajrayana, why aren't there more instructions for this kind of 'separating the Sukra from the Ojas' more readily available by now?

I mean there are Dzogchen Upadeshas printed in publicly available books now, so why not this?

How is it done? And where can I find a reliable English translation of Guru Rinpoche, or anyone else, explaining it?

Has anyone read Kennard Lipman's translation of Secret Teachings of Padmasambhava? It's largely about Karmamudra and in thumbing through it I see nothing about orgasm (except for a small section implying that we should NOT reach it) let alone separating Sukra from Ojas.

Also, Tantras, like other Alchemical texts, are symbolic in many ways, so we can't jump to conclusions and think they're saying that separating the Sukra from Ojas means orgasm. Assuming that we're dealing with reliable translations in the first place.

Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Lhug-Pa wrote:Has anyone read Kennard Lipman's translation of Secret Teachings of Padmasambhava? It's largely about Karmamudra and in thumbing through it I see nothing about orgasm (except for a small section implying that we should NOT reach it) let alone separating Sukra from Ojas.

I have - it's not worth the time or money. Also, Kennard Lipman is a Rabbi now. He gave up Buddhism for Judaism a long time ago.

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal

This is in the alternative health section so I will venture a reply....(first I thought this was about eyes ojos or perhaps bears)....

to my singular selective opinion drawing solely from my own personal experience and considering myself as a healthy person....

Engageing this thing of orgasm as means is necessary(by my experience). In the end howeverI I think after many years with quiet mind at the point, the point becomes no orgasm. Instead reality itself by transference of concept to real all becomes the orgasm.

That is my personal feeling and to my opinion why I presently feel so healthy. In orgasm one may find for that split second sicknesses disabilities of many natures other than of significant karmic import they dissolve for that split second....so generally I think on that basis is the principal of that thing.

Normally restriction of orgasm as a physical thing...it is considered most unhealthy. Medical people have stated this it is detrimental to the nerves. Considered this only as a means of health...I practice no tantra of this sort, nor would I discuss such a thing.

So I guess it depends. Restriction, but really it is not a restricted thing as no conscious mind to this thing it may not happen,(it is not that it is stopped) Brought to peak then nothing it happens not but appears transferred it cannot be stopped perhaps it is so powerful that thing. It becomes then a source of health in a way. Not overtly karmically reducing as in one with no legs suddenly has them but of a covert sort...pain cold sickness of sorts will not happen as much.

Personally on health as I don't know many of what you are talking about alternative health...I have offered that.But then done....in a healthy manner,it would not be engaged again...what the point of that?

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

Lhug-Pa wrote:Has anyone read Kennard Lipman's translation of Secret Teachings of Padmasambhava? It's largely about Karmamudra and in thumbing through it I see nothing about orgasm (except for a small section implying that we should NOT reach it) let alone separating Sukra from Ojas.

I have - it's not worth the time or money. .

Why? Though of no practical value to me, I thought it was interesting.

Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.- Shabkar

Lhug-Pa wrote:Has anyone read Kennard Lipman's translation of Secret Teachings of Padmasambhava? It's largely about Karmamudra and in thumbing through it I see nothing about orgasm (except for a small section implying that we should NOT reach it) let alone separating Sukra from Ojas.

I have - it's not worth the time or money. .

Why? Though of no practical value to me, I thought it was interesting.

This will sound harsh, but I don't think he's qualified to translate it

a) He's a person that's given up vajrayana/dzogchen practice for a completely different religionb) He starts by discussing Jung - a decades old method of making vajrayana confusing

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal

Lhug-Pa wrote:Well it's a short book and I got it from the library, so I might as well read it.

alwayson, you seem upset. What's with the disrespect? Why not just explain your reasoning for why you disagree?

Saying some one seems upset is useless spin for your side, sir (no offense). You might as well just ask of Alwayson why he feels that his presentation of Indian concepts is distorted (and retarted). Then he can prove they are distorted (if they are) and you can agree when the facts are shown, or dig yourself deeper by supporting him through your attachment, or, if it cannot be shown that his presentation is distorted, then you can use that to give ol' Samuel some credibility.